Waste Planning: Decentralisation to Centralisation

At the present time waste policy in Ireland is characterised by broad goals and parameters being set by the DoEHLG, based often on EU Directives and guidelines. Implementation is through a series of 10 regions.74 For example, there is a Dublin Region and a Cork Region. A number of benefits are expected to flow from these arrangements according to the international review including the realisation of economies of scale, efficiency of collection services which are often local or regional in scope as well as the development of an integrated waste management approach (Eunomia et al., 2009, p. 17). Each region is responsible developing a Regional Waste Management Plan (“RWMP”).

However, there are other benefits as alluded to in Section 6 above. Typically a one size fits all policy does not work because of variations across the country. For example, in dense urban areas such as Dublin a three or even four bin collection system might make sense, whereas in a rural area such as Mayo or Donegal, a single bin system combined with a network of bring banks and civic amenity centres may be more appropriate in view of the differing costs of collection.

Furthermore there can be experimentation and learning from the experience of other regions, which is much less likely under a centralised one size fits all. For example, Dublin City Council ran a pilot project before rolling out its brown bin across the city ran a pilot scheme. As a result of this pilot scheme, the brown bin itself was redesigned so that it was less smelly and so more acceptable to householders.75 If this experience can be shared with others then that learning will inform their decisions without the need to repeat the pilot scheme.

The Eunomia consortium record that there have been criticisms of the current administrative arrangements for implementing waste management policy. Some (unnamed) stakeholders felt the current system was ineffective; some (unidentified) investments were made allegedly despite rather because of the RWMPs. Others suggested that a national plan should be introduced, perhaps through the creation of a waste management authority. Apart from these rather vague assertions there are more substantive comments on the current administrative structure.

The City and County Managers Association (“CCMA”) is cited, for example, as calling for the need for greater “national co-ordination, both in framing of sustainable policy and in the development of the necessary infrastructure across the regions” (Eunomia et al.,

2009, p. 18). The OECD (2008, p. 328) also calls for greater co-ordination. RWMPs are chastised by the Eunomia consortium for not always filing their annual implementation reports and even those that are filed do not always fully comply with what is required (Eunomia et al., 2009, p. 18). Nevertheless it is admitted that national policy “has not always been entirely clear about the nature of the policies it expects regions to implement” (Eunomia et al., 2009, p. 18), while the OECD (2008, pp. 327-328) notes that the restrictive interpretation of the proximity principle by the DoEHLG, although recently relaxed, inhibited co-ordination.

Based on these observations the international review makes a sweeping recommendation centralising waste management policy in Ireland. More specifically:

R19. We propose that the RWMPs be replaced with one national waste plan. This

would require a change in the Waste Management Act. We propose that the process of changing the law, and developing the Plan, should be initiated as a matter of urgency as soon as a decision has been taken as to which of the policy recommendations made in this document are to be taken forward. In the interim, whilst a National Plan is being developed around these policies, these policies would then guide the implementation of waste management at the local level in the intervening period. Planning decisions should reflect the policies being implemented.

The ultimate responsibility for developing a National Waste Plan would rest with the Minister. A Ministerial Programme Board chaired by the Minister and including representatives from DoEHLG, EPA, IBEC, IWMA, Cre, CCMA, the CIF, An Taisce and environmental NGOs, would be responsible for steering the Plan. The Minister would, however, still make the executive decisions (Eunomia et al., 2009, pp.57-58).

The only text surrounding this recommendation is the rather elliptical statement that where it makes sense local authorities should be encouraged to work together. No reference is made to any of the 65 annexes or the international experience to justify or inform the recommendation, nor co-ordination mechanisms that fall short of the centralisation of waste policy and its implementation in the hands of central government. Finally, the international review does not discuss the impact of the removal of a substantial part of the second most important aspect of local authority responsibility, environmental protection, on local democracy.76

Comment #1: The Recommendation Has No Clothes

The recommendation abolishing the RWMPs and replacing them with a National Waste Plan (“NWP”) lacks rigour, clarity, and a rationale. It is not clear that anonymous and untested statements by stakeholders (which may be vested interest or pressure groups) should be given any credence whatsoever. No investigation appears to have been undertaken to establish the veracity of these statements.

76

The OECD (2008, p. 320) states, “Waste management is a major part of the second biggest expenditure item, environmental protection, which forms 19.2% of total local expenditure.”

Furthermore, it should be noted that the CCMA called for national co-ordination in relation to the provision of major infrastructure, it did not call for the abolition of RWMPs in favour of a NWP, nor did the OECD (2008, Box CS3.3, p. 336). The CCMA were concerned that the lack of a co-ordination mechanism between the regions, private operators and other stakeholders, raised “the potential for overcapacity and duplication between regions or between public/private sector exists” (CCMA, 2007, p. 25).

The international study could have investigated whether these claims had any validity and, if so, what might be appropriate solutions – are there, for example, legal or other barriers that prevent greater co-ordination or contracts to be drawn up across RWMPs? Could the DoEHLG or the EPA take a lead role in convening such a forum, particularly in view of the apparent good interaction that already exists? What decisions in particular might be suitable for co-ordination – incinerators or landfill, MBT plants? (CCMA, 2007, p.6). In other words, where are there externalities between regions that might merit coordination? Eunomia did none of these things. Finally, reference is made to the fact that some of the RWMPs do not always file reports on time or in the required detail. Moving to a NWP is a disproportionate response, given the importance of local factors in the economics of waste management (see Section 3 above). In sum, the Eunomia consortium does not establish a credible case for the abolition of the RWMPs and their replacement by a NWP.

Comment #2: Assigning Responsibilities between National & Regional Waste Management Plans

Nevertheless, let us assume for the sake of argument that there is a case for a NWP, the issue arises as to what functions presently discharged by local authorities under the RWMPs should be assumed at the national level and what should remain with the local authority.77 At the present time the major responsibilities of local authorities under the

RWMPs are, according to the DoEHLG, as follows:78

All local authorities have now reviewed their Regional Waste Management Plans. It is evident from the plans that local authorities have been guided by the various policy statements on waste. In particular, these plans make provision for the development of an integrated waste management infrastructure, including

• "kerbside" collection of recyclable materials in urban areas;

• "bring" facilities for recyclable materials in rural areas;

• civic amenity sites and waste transfer stations;

• biological treatment of "green" and organic household waste;

• materials recovery facilities;

• recycling capacity for construction and demolition waste; thermal treatment facilities; and

• residual landfill requirements.

Under the recommended approach we will presumably we will now have one NWP which deals with all these issues.

77

The Eunomia consortium is silent not only on which responsibilities should be assigned to which level but also what criteria should be used to make the decision. It does not discuss the degree to which in essence policy is already national in that the DoEHLG sets the framework and if the recommendations of the international review are implemented with respect to the pricing of externalities then these prices are set for Ireland as a whole. Instead, the Eunomia consortium sidesteps the issue completely by recommending all responsibilities should be assigned to the national level. This is a major shortcoming. Comment #3: Some Thoughts on Assigning Responsibilities

In Section 6 above we set out the sorts of factors that need to be taken into account in allocating responsibilities between different levels of administration. To repeat, policymaking should apply a high degree of “subsidiarity”, since the bulk of service costs and externalities are local or regional in their causation and incidence. Most of the relevant economic markets are also local or regional. The problem identified by the CCMA may mean that some thought needs to be given to appropriate co-ordination mechanism, since there may be negative externalities being generated by existing arrangements, but that requires identifying the problem and then the appropriate solution. The international consortium does neither.

Too much centralisation of policy will leads to a substantial risk of regulation being applied that is inappropriate for many areas. In particular, centralised command and control measures such as blanket rules on what practices and technologies may be used, to what extent, and in what places, are likely to be very costly to Irish society. In rural areas for example it may not be appropriate to have household waste separated into several streams for collection, whereas this may be appropriate for an urban area with a much more dense settlement pattern. Equally, while an MBT plant might be appropriate for a rural area, it ma be less suitable for an urban area, where incineration might be preferable. There will be a loss of experimentation if all policy emanates from the centre. Finally, centralisation may not be able to adequately take into account complementarities between (say) particular residual waste collection technologies and the sorting, collection and disposal of household waste

In sum the Eunomia report provides no compelling reasons for moving to a NWP and abolishing the RWMPs.